Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

etherscan price in btc #503

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

cryptofuture
Copy link

  • Adds getEtherPriceBtc method

@ricmoo
Copy link
Member

ricmoo commented May 6, 2019

This is something that make more sense to add to an Ancillary package. The v5 branch makes it easier to create simple extensions for more specific purposes. I'll look this back in once I've committed the v5 branch into the repo.

@ricmoo
Copy link
Member

ricmoo commented May 24, 2019

Also, as a note, I plan to add general support to all providers for getPrice(), using the Maker gas price oracle, which will allow sub-providers to override the implementation (for example, Etherscan provides their own).

Any conversion to BTC can be done by another package which has reliable access to the BTC price. Or does anyone know of reliable oracles for that too?

@cryptofuture
Copy link
Author

cryptofuture commented May 25, 2019

Also, as a note, I plan to add general support to all providers for getPrice(), using the Maker gas price oracle, which will allow sub-providers to override the implementation (for example, Etherscan provides their own).

Any conversion to BTC can be done by another package which has reliable access to the BTC price. Or does anyone know of reliable oracles for that too?

Basically cmc or coingecko (which api I prefer) already using median value, that is based on value from the different exchanges, but for ETH I'm using etherscan, since I prefer it for reliability.
But main point is are median values are really in fact reliable, if most time person anyway prefer only some exchanges or even takes local price in consideration.

@ricmoo
Copy link
Member

ricmoo commented Mar 13, 2020

I am going to push this off and close this issue. Please feel free to re-open if you would like to discuss further, but I think the price in BTC is too specific for this library.

An ancillary library can easily pull in the EtherscanProvider and use the provider.baseUrl if needed, although hardcoding the URL is likely easier and would reduce the need for ethers as a dependency.

Thanks! :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants